Welcome to the Frontpage

Support for an independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian state

01 August 2011

Executive summary:

On 20th September 2011 the Palestinian Authority will unilaterally declare independence at the UN General Assembly meeting in New York and seek recognition as a sovereign state and 194th Member of the international community of states embodied in the United Nations.

The PA will seek recognition from the Member-States of the UN and the UN Security Council of the state of Palestine based on the pre-1967 borders and with East Jerusalem as its capital.

This move has been a long time coming and has its foundation in a broad body of international law. These include UNSCR 242 and 1397, regarding the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Occupied Palestinian Territories; UNGAR 181, 2253 and 2254 and also UNSCR 267, 298, 476 and 478 regarding the status of Jerusalem and its occupation by Israel; UNSCR 446, 452, 465, 471 regarding the illegality of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

The ongoing, illegal occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the introduction of new obstacles to peace, in the form of the blockade on Gaza, the illegal wall constructed in the occupied West Bank , and the expansion of illegal settlements in East Jerusalem, have all contributed to the loss of Palestinian confidence in the peace process and its oftpromised outcomes.

The vote in the General Assembly must be backed by a majority in the Security Council for the vote to materially deliver a seat for Palestine in the UN as a sovereign state and international recognition as a member of the community of states. The Palestinian Authority is confident of securing the two-thirds majority it requires in the General Assembly, 129 votes out of the total 193.

The US Government has threatened to exercise its veto power to obstruct passage through the UN Security Council

The unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood finds its culmination in the two-year program of the 13th Government of the Palestinian National Authority, ‘Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State,’ adopted in August 2009.

International bodies such as the IMF, the World Bank and the UN accept that Palestinian institutions are ready to assume the responsibilities of statehood.

The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has previously spoken of the need for “decisive leadership” in resolving this protracted conflict. To act otherwise, he said, would only foment “decades of potential conflict and even deeper difficulties in the Middle East.”

The Palestinian Authority has taken the initiative and shown “decisive leadership” in declaring its intent to push a vote for recognition of a Palestinian state at the UN in September 2011. We would urge the British Government to match this with a display of “decisive leadership” of its own and vote in favour of recognition in order to rescue the peace process and to make progress towards a fully negotiated settlement by establishing its long-overdue and principal outcome: a viable, independent and sovereign Palestinian state.

Jonathan Sacerdoti was introduced onto several news programmes discussing Israel and Gaza as the director of the Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy. Sacerdoti, as Spinwatch carefully dissected, had a background in pro-Israeli advocacy, something viewers were not told.

The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit ruled on the complaints to say:“Mr Sacerdoti was introduced as the Director of the Institute for Middle Eastern Democracy, and it was not made clear that he is an active proponent of the Israeli viewpoint. What he said in the course of the interview was a legitimate expression of that viewpoint, and in keeping with the requirements of due impartiality in such matters. However, viewers should have been made aware that he was not a neutral commentator."

Further action

“The production team have been reminded of the importance of clearly summarising the standpoint of any interviewee where it is relevant and not immediately clear from their position or the title of their organisation.”

One of the complainants, Hilary Aked, wrote an essay at the time for Open Democracy looking at the BBC’s coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

BBC Trust upholds complaint over breach of impartiality rules

07 February 2014

Hilary Aked on Electronic Intifada draws attention to the ruling by the BBC Trust in the case of Jonathan Sacerdoti, a former Zionist Federation official who was invited onto BBC programmes in November 2012 to partake in discussions of Israel's bombardment of Gaza with no allusion to or sign-posting of his pro-Israeli bias.

acknowledged that "viewers should have been made aware that he was not a neutral commentator."

However, the ECU's dismissal of the complaint that Sacerdoti's affiliations breached the BBC's impartiality guidelines led to an escalation of the complaint to the BBC Trust which has, a year on, accepted that BBC News channels did indeed breach impartiality guidelines.

The impartiality guidelines, clause 4.4.14, states:

"We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations… are unbiased and we may need to make it clear to the audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint, if it is not apparent from their contribution or from the context in which their contribution is made."

The BBC Trust ruled that the BBC "had not made clear to the audience that the interviewee was associated with a particular viewpoint and this had resulted in a breach of impartiality guideline 4.4.14."

The process has involved complaints through the various channels: BBC Complaints, Controller of the BBC News Channel, Editorial Complaints Unit and finally, the BBC Trust and has taken over a year to resolve. Aked writes that "The process leading up to the decision was lengthy, time-consuming and frequently exasperating; at every stage, the BBC appeared unwilling to investigate properly."

The silver lining appears to be a change in procedure with the BBC Trust noting "the assurance from the Controller of the BBC News Channel that all BBC News Channel production and presentation teams had been briefed in very clear terms both in writing and in face-to-face meetings about the importance of clearly signposting interviewees when necessary."

How well the new procedures are implemented will depend on the rigour and tenacity of viewers who continue to hold the BBC to account over its output.

ENGAGE welcomed the party manifestos of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties with their assertion that "security measures must be proportional and consistent with liberal democratic values and the rule of law", and "the best way to combat terrorism is to prosecute terrorists, not give away hard-won British freedoms," respectively.

We welcome this opportunity to contribute to the review of counter-terrorism and security powers and present our responses to the six strands forming the scope of the review.

British Social Attitudes Survey 2012

The survey questions attitudes among the British public on issues ranging from identity, religion, personal relationships, Gender role, welfare, public spending and same sex relationships.

In the findings for the 2012 survey are interesting trends in relation to religious identity and trust in institutions compared to the landscape of 1983.

The BSA 2012 finds that in 1983, “around two in three people (68 per cent) considered themselves to belong to one religion or another; in 2012, only around half (52 per cent) do so…this decline is in practice a decline in attachment to Anglicanism.

“In 1983 two in five people (40 per cent) said they were Anglican, and the Church of England could still reasonably lay claim to being England's national church. But now only 20 per cent do so. In contrast, the proportion saying they belong to a religion other than Christianity has tripled from two to six per cent. Britain's religious landscape has not only become smaller but also more diverse.”

On the topic of political affiliation, the BSA survey finds that “Back in 1983, 72 per cent identified with one of these parties, while 87 per cent said they supported any political party, including the then Liberal/SDP Alliance. Now less than two-thirds (63 per cent) identify with one of the two traditional class parties, and around three-quarters (76 per cent) claim an adherence to any political party.”

On the subject of trust in public officials, the survey reveals that “Back in 1986, only 38 per cent said that they trusted governments "to place the needs of the nation above the interests of their own political party". By 2000, this had more than halved to just 16 per cent.

“While a degree of scepticism towards politicians might be thought healthy, those who govern Britain today have an uphill struggle to persuade the public that their hearts are in the right place.”

The survey also tracks a decline in attitudes concerning ‘the duty to vote’:

“Back in 1987, that year's British Election Study found that 76 per cent believed that "it's everyone's duty to vote". When we revisited the issue in 1991 only 68 per cent were of that view, falling to just 56 per cent by 2008. The figure has recovered somewhat in recent years and when we last asked the question in 2011, 62 per cent thought everyone had a duty to vote.”

On interest in political and current affairs, the survey shows that “In 1986, 29 per cent said that they had "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of interest in politics and the figure has remained at or around 30 per cent most years since then, and now stands at 36 per cent.

“People are more likely now than in the 1980s to have signed a petition or contacted their MP, no doubt at least partly reflecting the increasing ease with which it is possible to do these things via social media. And, although a majority doubt their ability to influence what politicians do, they are no more likely to feel this now than they were in the 1980s - indeed, if anything, the opposite is the case. In 1986, for instance, 71 per cent agreed that "people like me have no say in what the government does"; now that figure is down to 59 per cent.”

On the trust the average citizen displays towards the British press, the survey shows, “Only 27 per cent think newspapers are well run compared with 53 per cent 30 years ago, a trend that might have been exacerbated by the phone hacking scandal that forced the closure of the News of the World in 2011, but which clearly began before then.”